Technological innovation itself comes with high risks and uncertainties. Against the backdrop of increasingly fierce global technological competition and highly uncertain innovation risks, establishing and improving a fault-tolerant mechanism for technological innovation is of great significance for stimulating the enthusiasm of researchers and innovation subjects, and accelerating the achievement of high-level technological self-reliance and self-improvement. At present, China's technological innovation fault tolerance presents new characteristics and faces new challenges. It is urgent to adhere to the system concept and optimize the new pattern of technological innovation fault tolerance. The fault tolerance of technological innovation presents new characteristics. China's technological innovation activities are deepening into unknown fields, cutting-edge technologies, and complex systems, with exploration difficulty and failure probability increasing synchronously. Faced with this new normal, the limitations of the original fault tolerance mechanism are becoming increasingly apparent. In this context, the fault-tolerant mechanism of technological innovation gradually presents new characteristics and trends of global coverage, diversified governance, and forward-looking prevention and control, providing solid support for stimulating innovation vitality and achieving high-level technological self-reliance and self-improvement. One is to expand the scope of fault-tolerant coverage from local pilot projects to the entire field of technological innovation. The current fault-tolerant mechanism is breaking through early limitations and accelerating from specific projects or innovation links to covering the entire chain of technological innovation. This profound transformation has established an embedded and powerful fault-tolerant support system for the comprehensive innovation activities from exploring "no man's land" and tackling "deep water areas" to transforming into "risk areas", marking a new stage in mechanism construction. The second is the evolution of fault-tolerant governance entities from single administrative leadership to diverse collaborative governance. The construction subject of the fault-tolerant mechanism is undergoing a profound transformation from being led by government regulatory departments to involving multiple entities such as universities, research institutes, and technology enterprises in collaborative governance. The role of the government is shifting from being a direct controller to a rule maker, environmental creator, and service provider. At the same time, actively guide various innovative entities to leverage their advantages in risk identification, professional evaluation, and resource integration, and promote the formation of a new pattern of diversified collaborative governance. Thirdly, the concept of fault tolerance has shifted from post tolerance relief to emphasizing both pre risk prevention and process optimization. Modern fault-tolerant mechanisms actively promote the early detection, assessment, and intervention of risks by strengthening early risk identification, scientifically setting phased goals, establishing flexible adjustment mechanisms, improving process information recording and retrospective analysis, and other means, surpassing the traditional passive mode of "tolerance after failure", and promoting the optimization of scientific research organizational methods towards being more adaptable to uncertainty and encouraging agile iteration. The fault-tolerant mechanism for technological innovation faces challenges. Despite the evolution and deepening of fault-tolerant concepts and practices, the construction of China's fault-tolerant mechanism for technological innovation still faces some institutional bottlenecks and deep-seated contradictions, which restrict its full effectiveness. Accurately identifying these challenges is a prerequisite for promoting the improvement of mechanisms. One is that the systematization and synergy of top-level institutional design need to be strengthened. The relevant regulations on the current fault tolerance mechanism are scattered in policy documents such as technology management, financial auditing, and cadre supervision, and have not yet formed an authoritative or high-level institutional system at the national level. This increases the difficulty of cross departmental collaborative recognition of technological innovation fault tolerance. Due to differences in policy objectives, scope of application, recognition standards, and procedural connections between departments, it is easy to form ambiguous areas and operational difficulties in implementation, which increases communication and coordination costs and also affects the execution and implementation of fault tolerance mechanisms. The second issue is that the definition of fault tolerance boundaries and exemption situations is still unclear and lacks operability. The existing regulations mostly express principles, lacking clear, specific, quantifiable, and verifiable objective standards and implementation rules. There is a lack of scientific and reasonable classification and grading guidelines and prediction frameworks for typical risk types such as exploratory failures in scientific research, errors in judging technological routes, and sudden changes in market environments, resulting in strong subjectivity in fault tolerance determination in practice. The unclear expectations of policy boundaries have also reduced the security and attractiveness of the system to researchers. Thirdly, the concept of fault tolerance has not yet been deeply integrated into organizational culture and governance practices. Some scientific research management institutions have insufficient understanding of the laws of technological innovation, and the habitual thinking of "seeking stability and fearing chaos" and "generalizing accountability" still exists. They have a natural tendency to avoid exploratory and uncertain projects. The phenomenon of emphasizing results over process and success over exploration is quite common in the evaluation and assessment system. In addition, the promotion and interpretation of fault-tolerant policies are not deep enough, and frontline researchers have a shallow understanding of innovation fault-tolerant and unclear application paths, resulting in the phenomenon of "not daring to try" and "unwilling to try" still objectively existing. Fourthly, the construction of risk dynamic monitoring, scientific evaluation, and closed-loop feedback mechanisms lags behind. The existing scientific research management methods lack the ability to actively identify, track, monitor, and warn of risks throughout the entire lifecycle of scientific research projects, making it difficult to timely and accurately capture key nodes and risk evolution that may trigger fault tolerance. At the same time, there is a lack of independent, professional, and authoritative third-party evaluation forces to intervene in the process of fault tolerance determination, which results in insufficient scientific and objective guarantees for key factual judgments such as "whether it is an exploratory failure" and "whether diligent and responsible obligations have been fulfilled". To address the problems in China's current fault-tolerant mechanism for scientific and technological innovation, we should adhere to a systematic approach, strengthen the coordination between top-level design and practical exploration with a determination to break through and establish, and combine overall promotion with key breakthroughs. Specifically, it is necessary to work together from four dimensions: institutional construction, standard refinement, capacity support, and cultural creation, in order to systematically optimize the new pattern of technological innovation tolerance with greater efforts and more practical measures. One is to accelerate the construction of a comprehensive and authoritative fault-tolerant institutional system at the national level. Promote the issuance of relevant guiding documents to clarify the core principles and scope of application of technological innovation tolerance. Efforts will be made to break down departmental barriers, strengthen policy coordination, standardization, and mutual recognition of results among departments such as science and technology, finance, auditing, and organizational personnel, and focus on resolving policy conflicts and implementation blind spots. Integrate and optimize existing decentralized policy regulations, construct an institutional framework covering the entire chain of scientific research activities and the full spectrum of risk types, and clearly define the boundary conditions, applicable situations, and negative lists for fault tolerance and exemption. By designing high-level and systematic systems, a solid institutional foundation is laid for the robust operation of fault-tolerant mechanisms. The second is to establish and improve a clear, standardized, and operationally strong fault-tolerant identification and implementation mechanism. The core lies in formulating scientific, accurate, quantifiable and verifiable due diligence exemption criteria and implementation rules. Based on the risk characteristics of different innovative activities such as basic research, technological breakthroughs, and achievement transformation, classify and refine the judgment dimensions and fault tolerance scales of "exploratory failure". Establish standardized and transparent procedures for application, filing, evaluation, recognition, and public disclosure, and clarify the responsible parties and time requirements for each link. Explore the introduction of a differentiated management system based on project risk levels, implement a risk filing system and a process retrospective exemption mechanism for high-risk frontier exploration projects. The third is to strengthen the ability to accurately identify, scientifically evaluate, and dynamically optimize risks. Build a dynamic risk monitoring and early warning system that covers the entire lifecycle of scientific research projects, and use big data, artificial intelligence, and other means to enhance the ability to identify risks early and predict trends. Cultivate and develop independent, professional, and authoritative third-party evaluation institutions, deeply participate in major risk assessment and fault tolerance identification, and enhance the scientificity and credibility of decision-making. Establish a tracking, evaluation, and feedback mechanism for the implementation effectiveness of fault-tolerant policies, regularly review institutional adaptability, adjust and optimize implementation details and risk response strategies in a timely manner, and achieve the spiral upward and sustainable development of the fault-tolerant mechanism itself. The fourth is to vigorously create a cultural atmosphere and institutional environment that advocates innovation and tolerates failure. Promote the deep integration of the concept of fault tolerance into the governance and evaluation system of scientific research organizations. Revise and improve regulations related to scientific research project management and performance evaluation, adding assessment content for innovation process, exploratory spirit, and sense of responsibility. Advocate universities, research institutions, and enterprises and institutions engaged in scientific and technological innovation activities to take the lead in establishing internal fault-tolerant implementation rules and clarifying organizational commitments to support innovation. Establish a clear orientation of protecting innovation and encouraging exploration, and create an innovation ecosystem of "daring to take responsibility and daring to try and make mistakes". (New Society)